SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

69A and unexplained advances under section 69 amounting to Rs. 22,35,000/- and assessed the income at Rs. 1,02,10,485/- as against the returned income of Rs. 27,39,850/- 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has granted part relief to the assessee and against the additions

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so\nfar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion\nof the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or\nPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner,-\n\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

price of land at Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

price of land at Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

price of land at Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

SMT. JYOTI BHALLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-ll of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case

BHUPINDER SINGH SIDHU(HUF),MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1024/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu Huf, The Ito, बनाम House No. 1114, Sector 69, Ward 4(1) Mohali Chandigarh Vs. Punjab160069 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaghb9562C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. M.R. Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. Cit Dr, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 4.7.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

69A of the 1024/Chd/2025 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu (HUF), Mohali 7 1.T.Act, 1961 under head unexplained money/cash, which will governed through section 115BBE of the Act.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer without considering the submissions filed by the Assessee. Although the Assessee has filed appeal on four 5. grounds

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

KAPIL GUPTA,SIRMAUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

section 270A, 271AAC, 271A, 271B, 271AAD As is evident, the assessee has assailed the legality of assessment proceedings and also assailed various quantum additions on merits. 2. The Ld. AR made vehement arguments qua grounds of appeal and filed written submissions along with supporting case laws and computations. The Ld. CIT-DRs also advanced arguments and supported the orders

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in the eyes of law, therefore the assessment order needs to be quashed. 4. That the ld. PCIT has given sanction for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in mechanical manner and from the approval it is clear that it has been given without recording any satisfaction

INDER KALTA,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in the eyes of law, therefore the assessment order needs to be quashed. 4. That the ld. PCIT has given sanction for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in mechanical manner and from the approval it is clear that it has been given without recording any satisfaction

RANJANA KUMARI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) , SHIMLA

Appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

transfer of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in the eyes of law, therefore the assessment order needs to be quashed. 4. That the ld. PCIT has given sanction for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in mechanical manner and from the approval it is clear that it has been given without recording any satisfaction